The pointlessness of marriage?

[Penumbra]

People want to be joined together for life and they want to do it legally as well as spiritually. And there are tax benefits as well. Marriage isn't only about having children. And some religions (Christianity) believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin- so religious people want to get married for that reason. A lot of us don't see it as being pointless.

There are sometimes tax benefits, but there is also a potential marriage tax penalty. As far as I can tell, if I were to marry my partner and then file jointly with him, we'd have a larger tax payment to make, not a smaller one.

I don't particularly see why, in a country with separation of church and state, spiritual things should be established legally. Defining "marriage" results in all sorts of complex questions like, "who can get married?", "how old do they have to be?", "do they have to be different sexes, and why?", "can more than two people get married?", and so on. And then it affects taxes and so forth.

If people want to make legal contracts, that's cool. We'd still have some difficult questions like what sorts of contracts people can make, and what age they can make them, but overall, it seems a lot simpler than basing a legal system sort-of-but-not-quite on a religious tradition.

 

[nnmartin]

Biologically speaking, men are made to be able to rape women. Psychologically speaking, Freud saw most women did have fantasies about being raped and men fantasies about raping.

So, biologically and psychologically speaking, "rape is okay".

Also, human females can carry babies like since they are around 9 years old.

So from the kind of justifications you are trying to make, I would have a higher level of validity if I started to state that raping 9 year olds should be legal.

Naturally, we´ve risen above that long ago. So stop pretending nature is a "high level" morality.

but I am not talking about morality.

The point I am making is that people get married because of the children factor, and procreation provides the sex drive.

So with no children involved then marriage is just reduced to an administrative option (apart from for the religious) , and idealistic notions about love.

Also, our morality level has risen and we prohibit most forms of harm, so, therefore marriage no longer has any real value.

 

[Me Myself]

The point I am making is that people get married because of the children factor

Kathyrin didn´t marry because of children as she put a post you so conviniently ignored, does that mean she is not people or that she didn´t intend to marry?

 

[nnmartin]

It is true for the majority of people, but like all things, there will always be exceptions.

 

[blackout]

There are sometimes tax benefits, but there is also a potential marriage tax penalty. As far as I can tell, if I were to marry my partner and then file jointly with him, we'd have a larger tax payment to make, not a smaller one.

I don't particularly see why, in a country with separation of church and state, spiritual things should be established legally. Defining "marriage" results in all sorts of complex questions like, "who can get married?", "how old do they have to be?", "do they have to be different sexes, and why?", "can more than two people get married?", and so on. And then it affects taxes and so forth.

If people want to make legal contracts, that's cool. We'd still have some difficult questions like what sorts of contracts people can make, and what age they can make them, but overall, it seems a lot simpler than basing a legal system sort-of-but-not-quite on a religious tradition.

I completely agree with this.
(and the rest of the post too)

 

[ChristineES]

There are sometimes tax benefits, but there is also a potential marriage tax penalty. As far as I can tell, if I were to marry my partner and then file jointly with him, we'd have a larger tax payment to make, not a smaller one.

I don't particularly see why, in a country with separation of church and state, spiritual things should be established legally. Defining "marriage" results in all sorts of complex questions like, "who can get married?", "how old do they have to be?", "do they have to be different sexes, and why?", "can more than two people get married?", and so on. And then it affects taxes and so forth.

If people want to make legal contracts, that's cool. We'd still have some difficult questions like what sorts of contracts people can make, and what age they can make them, but overall, it seems a lot simpler than basing a legal system sort-of-but-not-quite on a religious tradition.

(I just didn't mention tax benefits, but a lot of other things, too)

I agree. If you see marriage as pointless, no one will force you to get married. If someone wants to be joined by marriage, then they should have the right to be married. My point was that marriage to some may be pointless, but it isn't pointless to others. If that were the case, then why are gays fighting so hard for the right to marry? Because marriage isn't pointless to them.
Legally, if one is not married- a life partner can't make legal decisions if his or her spouse is in a coma and other things of that nature. It isn't fair, but that is the legal world.

 

[LongGe123]

Marriage seems to be a pointless, outmoded idea and should be done away with.
Why do I think this?
This is because the conception of the marriage idea revolves around having children.
Young couples without children tend not too last very long as the biological purpose of love is not being fulfilled. This leads to infidelity and divorce.
So, if we allow divorce then why bother getting married in the first place?
If you are not likely to have children together then why get married in the first place?
The Natural function of love is procreation - it's other meanings are purely idealistic and we all see how this 'fades' away over time, unless of course there are children to perpetuate its substance.
So the proposal is to abolish marriage except for those that have children together, in which case the marriage can occur shortly after the first birth.
This seems like the most sensible option. (all other couples may have some kind of minor civil union type arrangement if necessary)

While I agree (sort of) with the original sentiment of marriage being done away with as an outmoded concept - the idea of abolishing in such as sweeping, absolutist and nonsensical way is totally baffling to me. I really don't think you've thought this through very much.

First, you're talking about doing away with god know how many centuries of tradition in a heartbeat - do you have any idea of what marriage means to people in certain cultures? How much it is valued and revered?

Second, as others have pointed out - there are certain legal and financial benefits to being married - it's a question of legal status. In modern society, marriage ACTUALLY serves a more functional role as to defining the status of certain people compared to others. I think you'll find that while tradition might place childrearing as a focus of marriage, the law does not. The fact is - whatever you decide to call it, you can't "do away with marriage" - because it serves a vital function within a society, as a proof of identity and status.

Third, also as some others have mentioned I think - it's a really wicked time with a big party, nice clothes, champagne and then a vacation for the happy couple - or in my case, a vacation for the groomsman as the wedding i'm attending this september is in Key West! hahaha am I the luckiest son of a gun or what?! So, you can call me bias for using my friend's wedding as a reason to back up marriage but hey, screw you.

Finally, speaking of those two friends getting married in key west - they want to do it because marriage is also a powerful symbol of the triumph of two people's love. I know not everyone gets married for the right reasons or to the right people, but that's no reason not to have it! Let me tell you all briefly about my friends Allie and Matt:

Allie, Myself, Matt and other assorted friends all live in Beijing. Allie met Matt a couple of years ago, and knew him as just "Married Matt" - yes, he had a wife back then - no children, married for about 3 years I think - they were very unsuitable for each other and their marriage was miserable. Allie also met me in the same week - and found out I was gay - she wrote her blog - 'Met 2 handsome British men this week, one is married and the other is gay, f*** my life!" hahaha. Anywho, after finding out Matt had feelings for her too, he separated from his wife, and started dating her. Eventually he divorced the wife (another friend of ours, it was AWKWARD), but they continued their relationship, got closer, moved in together, and last week they tied the knot officially in China - and we're having the more meaningful family ceremony in Florida in September. See the journey they went through? From their despair at being single / trapped in a loveless marriage - the fact that he's british and she's American and met in Beijing of all places, and the fact that their love for each other is SO strong that it has endured everything life threw at it until now. Tell me what's wrong with celebrating that love with a wedding? Tell me.

 

[blackout]

ANY two (and potentially even more) people should be able to join into personal legal partnership agreements.

It really shouldn't matter who they are, or what the nature of their relationship is.

The govt. doesn't stipulate that only (monogamous) 'lovers' can enter into legal business relationships.
So why not the same with personal ones?
These legal documents (bundled together as 'marriage') have to do literally with the 'business' and legalities end of your life.

Why is the govt. in the business of 'sanctioning' sex and monogomy
when it comes to people's personal legal partnership choices?
They have nothing intrinsically to do with each other.

Maybe I want my daughter or my brother or my best friend
in charge of my medical situations
because they have a better handle on that sort of thing.

I should be able to stipulate.

One size fits all legal documents,
do not fit all.

 

[Me Myself]

It´s simple, if you don´t see a point nor validity to the emotional relationship, buy a fulltime hooker.

She´d be forced to give you sex from now and then and you´ll give her money so she looks at you the way you think all women look at men anyways. So there.

You can even buy more when you become richer, and pay for the exclusivity from their part that you crave. Surely there exists women who would willingly agree. It´s perfect.

So, let´s just legalize that. You´d be happy I am sure.

 

[Penumbra]

It´s simple, if you don´t see a point nor validity to the emotional relationship, buy a fulltime hooker.

She´d be forced to give you sex from now and then and you´ll give her money so she looks at you the way you think all women look at men anyways. So there.

You can even buy more when you become richer, and pay for the exclusivity from their part that you crave. Surely there exists women who would willingly agree. It´s perfect.

So, let´s just legalize that. You´d be happy I am sure.

I have no problems with legalizing sexual services. Who am I to tell consenting adults they can't enter that kind of business relationship?

Keeping it on the black market level doesn't seem to be doing anyone any good.

 

[BeckyRose1998]

Marriage: bonds the lives of two people in God who love each other.
Some people get married for the sex. Others because they really love that person and they want to spend the rest of their lives with them.
And some get married because the girl gets pregnant. <---- These will end up in divorce, yes, but before the girl got pregnant, they loved each other.
3/4 marriages end up in divorce. God doesn't like it when people get divorced, but people do it anyway. Even Christians.
Marriage isn't pointless but it isn't for everyone. So, I'm not saying you have to get married, you really don't have to.

 

[nnmartin]

Perhaps marriage should be restricted to 3 groups only:

1. bona fide Christians / Religious folk

2. Couples under 30 that promise to have a child

3. Couples of any age that already have a child

this would make more sense than the current free-for-all arrangement we have.

 

[LongGe123]

Perhaps marriage should be restricted to 3 groups only:
1. bona fide Christians / Religious folk
2. Couples under 30 that promise to have a child
3. Couples of any age that already have a child
this would make more sense than the current free-for-all arrangement we have.

I still don't understand why you equate marriage with childrearing so closely? That's the real outmoded concept here - as I pointed out to you before. Marriage is about legal status, and about two people expressing their commitment to each other. I'm afraid you've totally got the wrong end of the stick

 

[nnmartin]

I see marriage itself as the outmoded concept here.

but in the case of childrearing it still makes sense as this was the original function of the arrangement anyway.

anything else is just a legal sham.

 

[LongGe123]

I see marriage itself as the outmoded concept here.
but in the case of childrearing it still makes sense as this was the original function of the arrangement anyway.
anything else is just a legal sham.

That's where I think you're wrong. Even if childrearing was the original "function" of marriage as you put it, it is NO LONGER that. Marriage now serves a different functional purpose, as I already outlined in another post (or two). Actually, these days, getting married simply for the purposes of having children, now THAT is the outmoded part - because that is rooted in a Catholic belief in no sex before marriage, and then the idea that sex's sole function of procreation - so marriage was indeed the road to having children. marriage = can have sex = can have children.

It is THIS concept that is now outmoded, not marriage itself. Marriage still serves an important role in society.

 

[nnmartin]

Marriage was around long before the Church became involved.

In primitive societies marriage played the role of keeping the man in the woman's sphere - in order to look after her and the young baby. Naturally speaking , the man would be having involvement with many women in the tribe so the mother needed a structure to keep him for herself and baby, thus marriage.

so, marriage is a natural system in which the oat sower and harvest collector can remain together with the young crop.

 

[LongGe123]

yes but you see that's not what marriage means everywhere in the world - so don't you see how your comments are so sweeping and general? how could it possibly be applied globally. I'm talking about what marriage means now, and what its function is NOW. you are talking about what its chief function WAS. Don't you see that?

 

[Viker]

Marriage is okay. I was going to get married once.

 

[nnmartin]

yes but you see that's not what marriage means everywhere in the world - so don't you see how your comments are so sweeping and general? how could it possibly be applied globally. I'm talking about what marriage means now, and what its function is NOW. you are talking about what its chief function WAS. Don't you see that?

I tend not to think of the whole world with these kinds of issue but, rather, to focus on modern progressive states.

So in the past, Caveman and Woman needed marriage to protect the family, then religion came along with its enforced morality.

Now we have the immorality of money, personal gain, entitlement and greed - for which marriage is used - but this is not how it should be according to nature or a socially progressive way of thinking.

The very fabric of marriage's natural essence has been piggybacked by the unholy power of mans' avarice, thus the best solution would be to abolish it altogether except for certain, wholesome couplings.

 

[LongGe123]

I tend not to think of the whole world with these kinds of issue but, rather, to focus on modern progressive states.
So in the past, Caveman and Woman needed marriage to protect the family, then religion came along with its enforced morality.
Now we have the immorality of money, personal gain, entitlement and greed - for which marriage is used - but this is not how it should be according to nature or a socially progressive way of thinking.
The very fabric of marriage's natural essence has been piggybacked by the unholy power of mans' avarice, thus the best solution would be to abolish it altogether except for certain, wholesome couplings.

Does it ever occur to you that you might not know everything about what's going on with people in the world? Does it ever occur to you that perhaps it's not reasonable to lump everyone together as one as you do in your posts? And why are you so keen to ban everything? I think the point I made about what function marriage actually serves within a society was valid, and yet you seem to have utterly ignored it altogether?

Marriage serves a purpose beyond childrearing - it is a LEGAL STATE OF UNION, it has many significant connotations for those who engage in it. It is NOT just about having children any more. The nature of marriage thousands of years ago is irrelevant - I'm talking about the modern day, and even in "progressive societies" as you put it, it serves a highly valid and important function, and you can't just do away with it, I'm afraid.